Five Notable Arguments Worth Paying Attention to in STG Logistics’ LMT Litigation
Ian Feng, J.D. - Senior Covenant Analyst, Covenant Review
15 September 2025
Insights into STG Logistics’ LMT litigation and its implications for sacred rights, Serta blockers, no‑action clauses, structural subordination, and funding mechanics, including:
- Why this case matters now: Understand how STG’s New York LMT lawsuit could shape the next wave of liability management tactics across the loan market.
- Sacred rights vs. workarounds: See how tweaking grace periods to “turn off” cash interest collides with sacred-right protections—and what Mitel means for drafting.
- Serta blockers under fire: Learn how “effect of” language and broad subordination concepts may capture structural uptiering, not just lien/payment priority.
- Standing and no-action clauses: Uncover when lenders can sue despite agent control—futility arguments, Beal precedent, and implications for BSL holders.
- Funding mechanics decoded: Clarify whether “internally generated funds” can include intercompany loans—and why that reading could make or break future buybacks.
The Bottom Line™️
- STG Logistics engaged in a liability management transaction in October 2024 which included drop–down, uptiering, and double dip components.
- Certain holdout lenders commenced litigation against the company in January 2025, with a motion to dismiss filed in March 2025, and oral arguments held in August 2025.
- The case has caught the attention of the market at large as it touches on a number of issues relevant to liability management practice.
- In advance of an expected decision on the motion to dismiss in the near term, we discuss five arguments raised in the course of the litigation and their potential implications on LMTs going forward.
Overview
STG Logistics (the “Company” or “STG”) and its ongoing litigation with certain creditors has caught the attention of the broader market in recent months, unsurprisingly so given that the case addresses a liability management transaction—the boogeyman of investors everywhere. STG’s transaction (the “LMT”)—which closed in October 2024—was a complex mélange of J. Crew-style asset drop-downs, unrestricted subsidiary debt issuances, multiple tiers within the new debt, coercive exchange mechanics, and even a double dip component. Though the LMT was supported by a wide range of creditors, two holdouts—Siemens and Axos (the “Plaintiffs”)—did not participate and sued the Company, the administrative agent (Antares Capital) and majority participating lenders (the “Defendants”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (the “Court”)1 on January 30, 2025 via an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”).
Fill out the below form to view the full article:
Please note that we can only respond to valid business email addresses and the interview is already available to clients.
Recently Published
Research
